September 27, 2006
Hey Hey Ho Ho, This Dissent Has Got to Go!
Acting on a hot tip we personally received from Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK, 100%) -- he sent emanations through the penumbra that we should read the Drudge Report and follow the links -- we discovered this astonishing letter written by Bob Ward, "Senior Manager, Policy Coordination" of the British Royal Society -- the top scientific body in the U.K. -- in which he pretty much orders Exxon/Esso to stop funding scientists who disagree with the Kyoto-Protocol party line on global warming.
The leftist Guardian is on the case -- on the side of suppressing dissent, as customary:
Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence"....
In the letter, Bob Ward of the Royal Society writes: "At our meeting in July ... you indicated that ExxonMobil would not be providing any further funding to these organisations. I would be grateful if you could let me know when ExxonMobil plans to carry out this pledge."
Why now? Why so urgent? Actually, there is a very important policy reason:
The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be published in February, is expected to say that climate change could drive the Earth's temperatures higher than previously predicted.
Mr Ward said: "It is now more crucial than ever that we have a debate which is properly informed by the science. For people to be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."
Those of you who have always thought of the British Royal Society as a "scientific body" can perhaps be excused for being gobsmacked at its conversion to a leftist activist group; but in fact, this is just a stage in the Left's gradual and insidious takeover of all manner of previously nonpartisan, apolitical, but patriotic American and British organizations (a non-exhaustive list in vaguely chronological order):
- It started with civil-rights organizations during the 30s, 40s, and 50s, such as the Civil Rights Congress;
- Then it was civic organizations;
- Many Protestant and Lutheran churches and Reform and "Conservative" synogogues;
- The Red Cross;
- The USO;
- The entire court system;
- The news networks;
- Trade unions;
- The music industry;
- The television industry;
- Science-fiction publishing;
- The great universities, especially the Ivy League (the rot spread from Berkeley and Harvard outward);
- The national newspapers;
- The Democratic Party, which used to be chock-a-block with patriotic war hawks like Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan, Scoop Jackson and Al Gore sr., is now run by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and soon-to-be minority leader John P. Murtha;
- The literary establishments and awards organizations (from the Pulitzer to the Nobel to the MacArthur Awards);
- The primary and secondary government schools;
- The JAG corps;
- Walt Disney (especially during Michael Eisner's "de-Disneyfication" of Disney);
- The Girl Sprouts (they're still working on the Boy Sprouts... but what they can't take over, they must destroy);
- The Catholic Church (see above about what they can't take over);
So it should be no surprise that leftism and political correctness has taken over first the medical establishment, and now the great science bodies: remember the FDA banning silicone breast implants, primarily because feminists objected to the very concept of breast augmentation? Well, now the AAAS, the NSF, Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, Science Magazine, Scientific American, and many other scientific organs have toed the PC line on such issues as the Strategic Defense Initiative, nuclear power, artificial sweeters and artificial fat, second-hand smoke, AIDS, pesticides (DDT), preservatives, and yes, global warming (especially global warming).
Of course, any body that is even remotely international -- including the Royal Society and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the foremost body flogging the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which grew out of the first big IPCC conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 -- is even more in thrall to the PC police than the American versions.
The first rule of leftism is "No enemies to the Left;" but the second rule is "No dissent; shut up do your duty to the Party."
The totalitarian tendencies of the current Royal Society are simply breathtaking:
The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, adds: "I would be grateful if you could let me know which organisations in the UK and other European countries have been receiving funding so that I can work out which of these have been similarly providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public."
Translation: Tell me now everyone you fund, so we can investigate, harass, make life miserable, put career under microscope, and make sure nobody even to think of contradicting Comrade Lysenko, who has full faith of Comrade General Secretary of Central Committee.
If there really is a "scientific consensus," as the Royal Society insists, then why would they worry about a few gadflies saying the Earth was flat and disease was caused by demonic possession? Perhaps what they're really worried about is something like this:
In April 2006, sixty respected climatologists, atmospheric physicists, meteorologists, and other climate-related scientists (who didn't get the memo about the "scientific consensus") sent their own letter to new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, begging him to reconsider the Canadian government's Kyoto-Protocol-driven energy policy. The current policy was rammed through the Canadian parliament by the former prime minister, the Liberal Party's scandal-ridden Paul Martin, who was ignominiously chucked out on a vote of no confidence last year:
As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans....
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.
This group of -- of charlatans strike at the very heart of the international scientific community's diktat that global warming -- whoops, my mistake... global climate change -- is real, damn it; is anthropogenic; and is so bloody urgent that it must be addressed immediately, immediately, no matter what economic ruin it causes. If such groups as this are allowed to communicate directly to heads of state like Stephen Harper (especially ones who might listen... like Stephen Harper), without having to use the IPCC as intermediary, why who knows what mischief they might manufacture!
While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
Naturally, such freethinking must be suppressed; we cannot have such people with "scientific credentials" -- such as...
- Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa;
- Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa;
- Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization, previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.;
- Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.;
- Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review;
- Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.;
...and about 54 similar individuals of no account -- gumming up the smooth dismantling of the world's energy supply.
Oddly, however, neither the British Society, the AAAS nor NSF, nor even the IPCC itself, who all insist on a consensus that we must stop putting so much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere... none of these groups advocates a shift to generating electricity by nuclear fission, using modern, safe, clean, and non-breeder pebble-bed reactors or integral fast reactors.
No no; whether the problem is global cooling, global warming, or an unusal sameness in the climate, the solution is always the same: smash the looms.
And absolute conformity, of course; that is always part of any solution advanced by the Left... Comrade.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 27, 2006, at the time of 11:57 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1283
The following hissed in response by: jd watson
Why not just call them them what they are: post-modern Luddites.
The following hissed in response by: jgrif
There is a suspicion that global warming is a manufactured excuse to avoid real world concerns, such as global terrorism. Your article reinforces that fear. How can the weather be morphed into a Leftist tool?
Speaking of which, some things the MSM never admits:
ONE-Last winter was extremely mild to the point of recording setting warmth for much of the US. Rarely acknowledged is that such mildness was to the BENEFIT of many of us.
Katrina sent 2005 natural gas prices through the roof. A warm winter meant a thankful respite from overburdened heating costs.
Score a point FOR Global Warming.
TWO- Also NOT IN THE MSM, SURPRISE, ALL the 2006 Hurricane Season forecasts have been disastrously WRONG.
NO Majors, No Big Disasters, few landfalls, even for Bermuda.
Terrible times for the hurricane disaster mentality, which-- like Spike Jones-- preys on victims.
We use Tom Skilling, out of WGN, Chicago, as our favorite meteorologist. He noted a couple of weeks ago that a building EL NINO (about which we've heard little) has meant an unfavorable environment for hurricane development, particularly in the Gulf Coast region. If you will turn on your 9/28 Weather Report, you will see just that pictured, as a perceptible frontal boundary can be seen keeping the present Atlantic disturbance well out to sea.
Since our good President was BLAMED for the controlling the weather in 2006, so NOW he SHOULD BE PRAISED for a real blessing in dearth of destructive weather... when was the last time you remember the MSM praising Mr. Bush?
More seriously, the hi jacking of world scientific bodies (among other organisations) as political tools, has serious ramifications. Michael Crichton has addressed some of this at his website.
I suspect the US loss of respect for the Nobel Committee. as well as for the UN scientific organisations, can be traced to some of this deplorable political partisanship.
The following hissed in response by: Nuclear Siafu
There's nothing quite as fun to watch as "scientists" violating their own fundamental ethics by silencing theories that conflict with the paradigm they've staked their reputations on. They’ve got a good thing going, being the entrenched consensus; of course they wouldn’t want to muck it up with competition. It's kind of like McCain-Feingold, but with periodic tables.
Wait, did I say fun? I meant disheartening.
Unfortunately, no amount of contradictory data is going to force them into a more reasonable position. The history of science has shown that the Establishment changes its viewpoint primarily through its members’ death or retirement. It’ll be a long time coming before we see a positive change.
The above hissed in response by: Nuclear Siafu at September 28, 2006 5:47 AM
The following hissed in response by: Fritz
I am truly amazed that any group claiming scientific principles would try to stifle debate on any subject. That they do so only shows that they are not scientists, but are instead advocates for their beliefs, which of course brings into question the accuracy of those beliefs. That they are unwilling to try to defend those beliefs with reason and logic makes such beliefs look even more like advocacy rather than reasoned conclusions reached through the best available knowledge and rigorous testing. The fact that Mr. Ward says there is a consensus shows he lacks credibility. Ah well, maybe we can convince them to start walking and they will fall off the edge of their flat earth. And just to be even more snarky, I actually think the flat earthers had better arguments than many in today’s environmental movement.
The bigger problem is that there are many on the left who believe in censorship. They understand that only through it can they ram their policies through. They recognize that their arguments will not prevail in any open and fair debate. Hence, stop debate.
Not to be unfair, there are also similar people on the far right who believe the same thing, but they lack the voice of the left. They lack the mainstream media and academia to advance their message. Hence their attempts to stop debate are less effective
The following hissed in response by: jgrif
'hurricane disaster mentality, which-- like Spike Jones-- preys on victims.'
Of course, I was referring to the racist HBO garbage of Spike LEE.
The following hissed in response by: Big D
When Freeman Dyson is convinced about global warming, then I will be.
I just read an interesting article from a researcher that solar output appears to be increasing approximately 0.05% per decade. This has been occurring for a century or more. He probably didn't get the memo from the IPCC.
Hmmmm. Solar output increasing and the Earth is...warming. No possible connection there.
Dafydd is of course correct - you can tell the loom smashers from the mislead by who supports nuclear power, and who does not.
The following hissed in response by: Terrye
I am not so sure this kind of thing is just about left and right. Scientists can be very obtuse. Once they make their minds up about something the community can close ranks.
The above hissed in response by: Terrye at September 28, 2006 12:17 PM
The following hissed in response by: Norman Rogers
Two funny things about the global warming scare:
1. We collectively have spent about a gazillion dollars since Kyoto was enacted to pay for these climatologists to continue "refining" their models. Why are all these "improvements" necessary? Well it turns out that the earlier models had lots of flaws. They didn't account for water vapor, for instance (the most powerful of all the common greenhouse gases). It seems that the more water vapor in the atmosphere -- the more likely clouds will form and reflect solar radiation back into space, for example.
And so we have seen an unseemly dance ever since. The modelers roll out their latest printouts and the skeptics point out their mistakes. And the modelers retreat to their computer consoles and gin up several "tweaks" (fudges) to account for what they missed (but to keep coming up with the same answers) -- and the cycle repeats.
If someone keeps getting proved wrong but still comes up with the same answers, repeatedly, I grow skeptical.
And if their models have needed all of these improvements over the past dozen plus years -- what does that tell us about the state of the science when Kyoto was enacted? Answer: Kyoto was based on "junk" science -- and things haven't improved since.
2. An old Bugs Bunny cartoon (I saw it, but I can't remember if it was animated or in print).
Bugs Bunny as the laboratory rabbit.
Elmer Fudd as the white coated scientist.
The repeated scene: Dr. Fudd brings to the rabbit a plate bearing two carrots -- one large and one small. Bugs chosses the smaller carrot and eats it.
Dr Fudd exclaims in exasperation (it's just not the same without Mel Blanc's voice characterizations), "Wabbit, I don't undewstand! Why do you keep taking the smallew cawwot?
Bugs: Because, if I take the bigger cawwot, you'll stop bringing me cawwots!
And that my friends, is the story of climatological research in our modern world. If these scientists who slop at the trough of public funding come up with a finding that says, "Oops -- never mind", their funding will dry up.
The following hissed in response by: Navyvet
There is a much greater danger confronting us than global climate variation, and the scientific community has been influenced (either by big business, big government, or both) to completely ignore this diabolical threat.
Of course, I'm referring to the alarming loss of daylight now manifesting itself in the northern hemisphere. Independent scientific studies have determined that from September 1st through the 28th, roughly one minute of daylight has been lost each day. At this pace, we will be plunged into total darkness within the next two years!
Every computer model demonstrates the impending catastrophe, and it is obvious to even the most ignorant that we must pour every available resource into finding a solution for this problem. I, along with several associates, have originated the Global Initiative to Preserve Daylight. We are asking each of the industrialized nations to pledge $100 billion to combat this avoidable disaster. (Please send all funds to P.O. Box 1207, Grand Central Station, New York, N.Y.) If we begin now, we can halt--and possibly reverse--this alarming trend by late December.
(If there's any money left over after we solve the daylight thing, we'll try to tackle the growing problem of leaf-loss among our prescious trees. This dangerous situation appears to be linked to the daylight problem...but solving it might take another couple hundred billion or so. We'll get back to you on that.)
The following hissed in response by: Dan S
"undermine the scientific consensus"
That says it all. Science has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus has always been the enemy of scientific advance.
If a "consensus" is cited, the science is missing. Facts don't require consensus; theories are the realm of consensus.
Theories must be falsifiable. Making them politically unfalsifiable is a long step towards showing the theory is a bad one. Good theories don't need political support. The facts provide the support.
Of course, this is all beyond MSM, which is how these quacks get away with their "popular science."
The following hissed in response by: yonason
This is a slight modification of a post I made to another site on a different aspect of the same topic. I hope you think it's relevant here.
So, why is climate warming a problem now, when it wasn't then?
This summer, we found dinosaur tracks from meat and plant eating, duckbilled and armored dinosaurs," said Roland Gangloff, curator of earth sciences at the UA Museum of the North. "Now we know DINOSAURS FLOURISHED IN ALASKA even earlier than our previous work had indicated," he said.
SAY WHAT!!!!!! Dinosaurs terrorizing the tundra? I thought they liked WARM climates? You don't suppose.... NAW, that's silly. Alaska couldn't possibly have been that warm, ...could it?
Let's go to the other pole to see what else we can come up with.
The most common types of dinosaur known from the fossil sites, small plant eaters called hypsilophodontids, rarely grew to be more than about 2 metres in length, with some only reaching half that. GLOBAL SEA LEVELS WERE EXTREMLY HIGH AT THIS TIME,...
So, what about the teperatures?
The CLIMATE WAS WARMER in polar areas than it is today. There were NO POLAR ICE CAPS at the north and south poles.
oops, now that would be "INCONVENIENT" for Al Gore and the other climate freaks, if only they cared about facts.
Gee, green taliban, I hate to burst your 'sky-is-falling' bubble., but... oh, heck, who am I kidding. I'm lovin it.
And for a little more on the issue of global warming, here's a helpful link.
(Actually, this lovely image gave me the idea to google dinosaurs and arctic. Thanks, Al, for providing me the clues to discover that it's only you and your moonbat friends who are full of hot air.
The following hissed in response by: yonason
But, seriously, with regard to your main point; they have a plan - a bad blan but a plan nontheless - and they are organized, united, singleminded, and persistant, not to mention rutheless, mean and they fight very dirty. We have outstanding blogs that operate semi-independently with no central leadership. In fact, the leadership we do have is acting like it was the 1980's and as if it were blissfully unaware of the evil lurking behind nearly every democrat. Why on earth aren't we taking the fight to them, and with a leadership that actually looks like it is leading, and knows what the problem is? You see, it doesn't matter how many indians know that Custer can't be trusted. The crucial thing is for the chiefs to know, and I see little or no evidence that they do. I would love for you to show me otherwise...
What is your assessment? Is America hitting the fan, or isn't it?
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved